Six-and-a-half minutes for two men to try to stop a father from beating "the demons" out of his two-year-old son in the middle of a dark country road. Six-and-a-half minutes for a young woman to crouch in her car and watch in helpless shock. Six-and-a-half minutes for a police officer to land in a helicopter, run across a cow pasture, and shoot the man squarely in the forehead.

MY QUESTION:

Would things have been different if one of the men or the woman had had a firearm and not been afraid?

Quote:

“…but she said no one tried to stop him because he appeared to be dangerous. One fear was that "maybe he had something in his pocket," she said.”

This relates directly to why I started to train in martial arts back in 1972. I may joke about starting to train so I could beat people up but in fact, I already felt I could handle most situations ok.

Then I got concerned that I had to protect my family. Nor did I want to go to jail because the only option I had in protecting my family might be an illegal over-reaction of excessive force.

Six-and-a-half minutes…

until a man with a gun could come and shoot him.

A baby dies because we have been indoctrinated to believe that our use of violent force is somehow wrong even though it may save the life of an innocent.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

~ Mahatma Gandhi

Years ago I decided I would never be helpless in the face of violence against my family. Violent force would not be my first choice nor my desire but I would be able to stop violence by my own hands if needed. This has become extended to the larger community.

“He seemed to be dangerous…”

Are we cowards that we must watch a child die because the killer is dangerous??

In fact I doubt if they were cowardly, just overwhelmed and inadequate in the face of true evil.

I’m with Ghandi on this one; when we are faced with the necessity of violence, calling our impotence non-violence is crass and unworthy.

Here is another link that works. I had read about this on another forum, and they had cited several elderly folks (presumably from nearby homes) also stood by and watched helplessly. This article talks about a volutneer fire chief and another man that tried to pull the father off his child, but they weren't able to do so. This and the "hollow eyes" implies to me that the man had worked himself into such a state or had some chemical additives at work that made him difficult to stop...of course...a nearby tree branch or crowbar might have helped.

The child was so mangled they needed DNA testing to confirm it was his son.

I am horrified, disgusted, and angry by this hideous crime! I'm having a hard time determining which disgusts me more...the man's actions or the ineffectiveness of so many of the witnesses!

I believe there is a known phenomena...the bystander effect?....where folks often freeze into inaction and watch things like this with...I don't know...sick horror? and don't react until someone else does.....I just don't know how ANYONE can stand by while a small child is brutalized. I can only hope, if I was ever presented with such a situation, that I would use whatever tools I had at my disposal to stop that bastard in his tracks.

"That child probably suffered fatal injuries before the motorists arrived on the scene."

That may be a major factor. If I am elderly, and there is a crazed young man beating a body, there is no reason to add to the fatalities. I am reminded of other situations where witnesses ran to an electrocution event at a Scouts event and joined the DOA list, or when a whole group of young men followed a friend to a watery grave when he fell into a raging strem and they tried to help. Heroes, but stupid. I'd rather hug my son and tell him I'm sorry his 5 friends died in front of his eyes than bury him.

Beyond that,

1) shot in the forehead? Nice, but... center mass?

2) shot in the forehead? NICE! This man was breathing our air and I can't say I will grieve him. I'd suspect drugs more than a late in life psychotic break. Some psychotic people can be treated into normality or much improved and losing one would be unfortunate... but no reason to celebrate when a monster is detained and we foot the bill for his execution or detainment or crimes after release.

3) "Bystander Effect" -- it is easy for us to imagine intervening here, however, we've at least done martial arts. Frequently people have zero exposure to violent or stressful situations like this over their whole lives. We have a series of "tools" in our behaviors for responding to situations instinctively; if a person doesn't have the tool for violent intervention, they can only stare--or intervene, late, ineffectively, and half paralyzed sometimes. When we are at a loss for what to do, we look to others, which other people do as well. That's why you hear about a woman attacked and killed over 5 minutes between two housing structures where people on all levels watch, doing nothing, all waiting for someone else to act. People will also sit in a room as it fills with smoke if others remain calm (as they will in a psych experiment when they're in on it) instead of fleeing what presumably is a fire.

I used to sometimes swelter or freeze somewhere as others did the same and after reading about all this, I now will get up and ask the right person to fix the climate. And I put myself in situations, at least mentally, where I can practice intervening, so at least there is a precedent somewhere in my cortex for doing what needs to be done.

Sure it would be nice if one of these people had a gun. I suspect that if there were a gun in the family that kid would've had his head emptied even sooner though--something tell me mom wouldn't have controlled it. I am just telling myself the soft skull of a toddler allowed this creature to render him unconscious very quickly and the suffering ended at that point.

The truth is that in most parts of this country, with the politically motivated DAs, and the monetarily motivated supposed "victims", the chances are that had one of the bystanders had a firearm, shot the perp, and saved the child OR even the knowledge and capability in martial arts, severely injured/maimed/killed the perp, and saved the child...

They would have been arrested, charged with murder (of the father), end up losing their job (because you can't go to work while in jail), end up losing their home (no job, no money, no mortgage payment, no house... regardless, the home would be used as collateral for bail and lawyer's fees most certainly having to be sold to cover those expenses), and even if exonerated of the criminal charges, would then be facing an enormous civil lawsuit from the perp's family.

As firearms owners and martial arts should know if the don't know, that's just the way things are... and the way things will happen, especially in certain places such as CA, MA, NY, NJ, DC, and the like. Those are just the sad facts. Good Samaritan laws don't help or protect you in that type of circumstance.

That doesn't prevent good people from helping in bad situations, but they should realize that no good deed goes unpunished. And that knowledge has caused more than one potential defender to turn a blind eye in the face of such horror.

As for the father/perp... This definitely calls for Capital Punishment of the most "cruel and unusual" method.

Really? Are you sure? I don't know why a family would be less likely to sue the police than a bystander--maybe a little, but certainly whenever there is extreme force, then the news and law machines get rolling. And what happened here? The police made a warning, then they shot the guy, and no one's upset. I really, really doubt that someone who saves a toddler from a brutal death is going to have an expensive legal battle ahead of them. Instead, I think they'd be more likely to receive a hero's welcome in the press. There are no promises, but I think there's a ton of lawsuit fear out there. Some is legit... at work, where I'm a doctor, I carefully document my plans and my communication with the family/patient (ie, their consent to the risks of the plan), and try to maintain good relations with them (primary determinant of not being sued). BUT there is just so much emphasis on the horrors of litigation, and the fact is, most doctors who pay out injured a patient. And for the number of contacts we have, the rate of lawsuits is still low. Should it be better? Sure... but it's not all doom and gloom.

I don't know why a family would be less likely to sue the police than a bystander--maybe a little, but certainly whenever there is extreme force, then the news and law machines get rolling.

Because "police" are expected to have guns and shoot "bad guys" (tm), while "private citizens" (most especially in the PRoMA, where we live) are most assuredly not! PLEASE re-read my post... I did not say that the private citizen gun-owner wouldn't be exonerated. I pointed out the high likelihood of getting arrested and charged in many places (which I specifically listed)... and the resulting consequences of that occurance... including the inevitable "wrongful death civil suit" brought by the family of the perp. Again, I did not say that the private citizen gun-owner wouldn't win that litigation, just the high likelihood that such litigation would occur against the private citizen gun-owner. And the fact that such arrest and/or lawsuit would most certainly bankrupt (at the very least, probably destroy marriage, family, and have other dire consequences) the private citizen gun-owner "hero". In the places I listed, that belief is based on and backed up by history.

IJ wrote:

And what happened here? The police made a warning, then they shot the guy, and no one's upset. I really, really doubt that someone who saves a toddler from a brutal death is going to have an expensive legal battle ahead of them.

There is at least one case that basically fits the criteria from the States that I mentioned that indicate you're optimism is ill-founded.

IJ wrote:

Instead, I think they'd be more likely to receive a hero's welcome in the press.

Do you really live in Massachusetts, really know and understand Massachusetts firearms laws, and really know about the precident cases that apply in Massachusetts? If you did, you wouldn't make such a statement.

IJ wrote:

There are no promises, but I think there's a ton of lawsuit fear out there.

Sometimes such fears are based in reality and fact, not irrational phobia.

IJ wrote:

Some is legit...

Thanks for that acknowledgement!

IJ wrote:

at work, where I'm a doctor, I carefully document my plans and my communication with the family/patient (ie, their consent to the risks of the plan), and try to maintain good relations with them (primary determinant of not being sued).

As a private citizen, lawful gun-owner, there just isn't the opportunity to sit down with a violent perp and spell out the fact that if they don't quit beating to death the infant, you're going to use lethal force to stop them... and even if one does (as one should) attempt to use other methods (warning, etc) to stop the perp, that usually doesn't work in the heat of the situation either. I seriously doubt such perp would sign a "consent form" allowing you to use deadly force to stop their rampage!

IJ wrote:

BUT there is just so much emphasis on the horrors of litigation, and the fact is, most doctors who pay out injured a patient.

The "horrors of litigation" come from the "horrors of litigation"! I won't comment on the fact that doctors who pay out have injured a patient... It is what it is and the only valid comment would be on a case-by-case basis... IMNSHO...

IJ wrote:

And for the number of contacts we have, the rate of lawsuits is still low. Should it be better? Sure... but it's not all doom and gloom.

That's good and comforting to know. Still... More people die from malpractice than from private citizen, lawful gun-owners. But which do you think (on a percentage basis) are more likely to get criminally prosecuted or civilly sued for wrongful death or injury?

WRT to the high probability of getting arrested and charged, I'd be curious to see some stats. High profile arrests make the news. Perhaps the others do not. Personally I've managed to live my life with fair news exposure and NOT heard of Samaritans getting busted for acting. Surely it happens, but I haven't heard it happens enough to affect your thinking. CERTAINLY statements claiming that marriages and families are most often dissolved if there is a lawsuit deserve some backup.

Panther, I wrote I doubt that a person who saves a toddler from a psycho is likely to be sued; you mention that a case proves me wrong. Well, one case proves nothing about what is most likely. If 10 of these go down and one is sued that one case in fact backs up my doubt that prosecution or lawsuit will follow. May we read a link about the case?

And thanks for clarifying that perps don't sign consent statements. I, or at least someone, must have been really confused about that point. As for physician liability, how come that must be dealt with on a case by case basis (when there are articles about error rates and lawsuits to be read, previously cited on the forums, including from the new england journal of medicine), when gun owner lawsuit distress is established by one vague reference to inappropriate prosecution?

As for whom is more likely to be sued, a doctor presumably trying to help someone and making an error and a private citizen using deadly force to injure or kill--well, there's an obvious guess, but let's not make guesses.

So far, I do not see any facts establishing the presence of the lawsuit hurricane that is destroying the lives of those who rescue toddlers from certain death.

Just in the past week or so in your residence State of Massachusetts...

A Father took his young son into the restroom at the local Market Basket grocery store where an employee/perv reached under the stall divider and rubbed/grabbed the child's leg (current reports are that it was high up on the child's leg)! The father, seeing what was happening to his young son, pushed open the stall door where the employee/perv was at and punched the perv in the face! So, the cops are called and...

you guessed it...

The Father is charged with assault and battery! IMNSHO, the father should have been given a medal and instead of arresting the father, the cop should have had to seriously consider the dilemma of giving the father his service gun to truly take care of the problem. (Not that the cop should do that, but it's the thought that counts... ) Now, the father has to hire an attorney, take time off for court, and is already hearing about a potential civil suit from the perv & family! You see, it seems that 1) the perv claims that he was just kidding around (BS!) and 2) evidently the perv is of a "protected, we better not offend them" group.

That's Massachusetts, a politically motivated DA, and cops who claim that they're "just doing their job... we had to charge him."

But that's OK... you're still correct in all your assertions regardless. Even ONE person protecting themselves that has to spend the time, effort and money (all unrecoverable) to defend themselves from these types of charges is one too many.

Oh and BTW... Touch my son (or wife) and you'll wish it was only a punch in the face. I'm really tired of all this "tolerance" of the perp and punish the good upstanding defending themselves citizens. Don't like it and you're part of the problem not part of the solution.

"But that's OK... you're still correct in all your assertions regardless. Even ONE person protecting themselves that has to spend the time, effort and money (all unrecoverable) to defend themselves from these types of charges is one too many."

I think we're coming at this from different perspectives. Mine is I'd like to actually have some data and sources before deciding this is a pervasive problem (not than one is appropriate), and yours is that its a serious problem, any questioning of the party line is inappropriate and every futher anecdote cinches the case further. Suit yourself, but establishing this issue instead of stating it might actually cause something to be done about it--there's enough readers here to get a reform movement started, for one.

In this example, I wonder:

1) may we have a news reference? Heck, may we have an email address for the DA after that, so we can do something, besides grumble privately?

2) who stuck around in the bathroom with a pervert to wait for the police, anyway? Conversely, who stuck around with an angry dad to wait for the police? I'd have to guess the pervert was held there by the dad. Which likely means the dad is the larger or more capable of the two. Which may mean he could have ended the problem without entering that stall (I think I would have gone after my kid before the pervert if a grab was under way). Details matter, because...

3) Is there not a difference between intervening to save a child's life in an ongoing beating (I've never even heard an anecdite about this being prosecuted) and entering a closed bathroom stall to extract a little revenge? I'm not saying the perv didn't deserve it, but I am saying that the less danger there is, and the greater the separation between the event and the response, the more likely I would guess prosecution becomes.

For example:

Interrupting a grab of a kid: golden
Popping a pervert after entering their stall (that is, reducing the separation between yourself and the suspect): devil's in the details
Following the pervert home: assault/battery or murder, depending.

4) Was the pervert charged? If getting punched relieves you of guilt, that would certainly be a whacked out, politically motivated DA (just whom are those masschusettsians voting for over there??!!). On the other hand, I doubt being "politically motivated" explains giving a child molester a pass and arresting a worried dad who protected a child. What public is going to get excited about that prosecutor? The coveted NAMBLA voting block? There's got to be something else happening... maybe just an undeveloped mind that looks at law/police power as something to be mindlessly applied by the executive, confidant in the let-the-judicial-sort-them-out approach?

I think we're coming at this from different perspectives. Mine is I'd like to actually have some data and sources before deciding this is a pervasive problem (not than one is appropriate), and yours is that its a serious problem, any questioning of the party line is inappropriate and every futher anecdote cinches the case further. Suit yourself, but establishing this issue instead of stating it might actually cause something to be done about it--there's enough readers here to get a reform movement started, for one.

ANY prosecution of someone defending themselves, their loved ones or other innocents is just wrong and I, for one, am sick and tired of the PC crowd giving the perps a pass while going after those who stand up against the perps. This isn't any "party line" at all. I don't claim to have a slew of data for you. I agree that data, cites and sources are important. I simply do not have the time currently to do any more homework for you. This latest isn't an "anecdote" at all... it's in the news in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and the AG bitch we have came out yesterday and refused to support anyone protecting their child in such a case! Her position is that your only recourse if your child is being grabbed/assaulted is to call 911. (If I see her being grabbed/assaulted, I guess I'll just hope my cell phone has enough "bars" when I try to call 911 -play the theme to Jeopardy here- )

IJ wrote:

In this example, I wonder:

1) may we have a news reference? Heck, may we have an email address for the DA after that, so we can do something, besides grumble privately?

2) who stuck around in the bathroom with a pervert to wait for the police, anyway? Conversely, who stuck around with an angry dad to wait for the police? I'd have to guess the pervert was held there by the dad. Which likely means the dad is the larger or more capable of the two. Which may mean he could have ended the problem without entering that stall (I think I would have gone after my kid before the pervert if a grab was under way). Details matter, because...

3) Is there not a difference between intervening to save a child's life in an ongoing beating (I've never even heard an anecdite about this being prosecuted) and entering a closed bathroom stall to extract a little revenge? I'm not saying the perv didn't deserve it, but I am saying that the less danger there is, and the greater the separation between the event and the response, the more likely I would guess prosecution becomes.

For example:

Interrupting a grab of a kid: goldenPopping a pervert after entering their stall (that is, reducing the separation between yourself and the suspect): devil's in the detailsFollowing the pervert home: assault/battery or murder, depending.

4) Was the pervert charged? If getting punched relieves you of guilt, that would certainly be a whacked out, politically motivated DA (just whom are those masschusettsians voting for over there??!!). On the other hand, I doubt being "politically motivated" explains giving a child molester a pass and arresting a worried dad who protected a child. What public is going to get excited about that prosecutor? The coveted NAMBLA voting block? There's got to be something else happening... maybe just an undeveloped mind that looks at law/police power as something to be mindlessly applied by the executive, confidant in the let-the-judicial-sort-them-out approach?

As an aside, I moved to Cali in 2004.

Good for you. I'm working on moving out of this effin State too... But it won't be to yet another effin place like the PRoCA!

A 4-year-old boy was allegedly groped in a bathroom at the Market Basket by a store employee last month, inciting the boy’s father to attack the perpetrator during the incident.

Valerio Rodriguez, 71, of Providence, was charged with a felony count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 after he reached underneath a bathroom dividing wall and touched the boy high on his leg as he was standing on a bucket to use the adjacent urinal, police say.

The stall’s partition is elevated 18 inches off the ground, police say, providing “plenty of room for Rodriguez to reach under the stall.”

The boy’s father, Jason R. Beatrice, 31, of Oak Street, who was also in the washroom during the incident, told police he forced open the stall door and punched Rodriguez several times, resulting in a minor cut on the suspect’s lip and a welt on the middle of his head. Panther's comment: He deserved a LOT more than that!

Speaking through a store employee, Rodriguez, who speaks Spanish, told police he was wrong for touching the boy and “only fooling around.”Panther's comment: Bull Sh*t! He finally got caught! How many other kids has he groped and gotten away with it? "Only fooling around"?!?! Even as a lame excuse it doesn't even count as a "lame excuse!"

Police charged Beatrice with assault for hitting Rodriguez, saying they empathized with his actions but would have preferred Beatrice detain the suspect until police arrived. Panther's comment: Only in these effin liberal bastions of political correctness do we charge a parent for defending their child! Only in these effin commie states do the "officials" take the side of the perv/perp and go after the hero trying to protect a child! Welcome to the liberal utopia... disgusting!

Although Rodriguez faces a felony charge, police decided not to arrest the suspect at the scene due to his advanced aged and lack of a criminal record. Panther's comment: WTF! The perv assaults/grabs/gropes a young boy and the stupid cops decide not to arrest him? Only in places like Massachusetts...

“The reason you would [make an arrest] would be to stop the crime or you don’t think the person would show up in court,” Raynham Police Chief Louis Pacheco said. Panther's comment: What happened to arresting someone for COMMITTING A CRIME?!?!

Arresting Rodriguez, he said, would have required police to also arrest Beatrice, a scene that might have further traumatized the young victim.Panther's comment: Absolutely a bald-faced LIE! Arresting the perv in no way requires arresting the Father who came to his young son's defense! This CLEO should be fired!

Decisions like giving Rodriguez a summons rather than handcuffing him at the scene are the police chief’s responsibility, said Gregg Miliote, spokesman for the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office. “They have the discretion until the arraignment, then it’s our case,” he said. Panther's comment: See... It's at the Chief's discretion! What a jerk! Only in places like Massachusetts!

According to a flyer circulated around town, Rodriguez however, was still seen working at the Market Basket as recently as last week. Panther's comment: I contacted my local Market Basket in the last week and informed them that I would be going to their competitors as long as they knowingly employ child molesters... even if they ARE trying to be "PC".

A spokesman for Tewksbury-based Demoulas Supermarkets, owner of the Market Basket chain, did not immediately respond to inquiries regarding the incident, but a report in the Raynham Call stated Rodriguez was suspended from his job pending the investigation.Panther's comment: It was on the news as recently as this past weekend that the perv was still going to work.

Rodriguez is scheduled to be arraigned in Taunton Superior Court July 29. Beatrice will be arraigned July 31. Panther's comment: So... How much in time and money do you think it will cost Mr. Beatrice to "justify" his actions to some "PC" kangaroo court? He should be getting a parade for stopping a perv/perp, instead it costs him $$$$, time and maybe more.

=====================================================

From Debbie G:

I was at Market Basket when this happened. That poor father was completely distraught and his son was so scared. Jason kept saying I promised my son I would never let anything happen to him and I failed. I saw the prev come out of the bathroom and he didn't look very upset. Yes he had a bloody lip but he deserved more than that. The father was trying to get any employee to call the police and the prev just took off. That father should not be charged with anything because he was protecting his son. In Texas he could have shot him with a warning and no charges would have been brought. Since when do we punish parents for trying to keep their children safe!

=====================================================

Please note that this woman says that "the perv just took off"... So, again, WHY didn't the police feel the need to arrest him? Why did they think that he would/will show up for arraignment? Even if this is the ONLY case where someone has been charged for defending their child, it is ONE TOO DAMN MANY! GET IT? If not, you're part of the problem. (And you wonder if a gun owner is likely to get charged... I think that the Father should have had not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to take the effin perp OUT and save us all the time of a trial! And the AG in MA is a PC commie whore for not backing up someone who came to the protection of their young child!

While I'm on this little rant/pet-peeves, I'm also sick and tired of the LEOs who think it is their right to put a black plate with a blue reflective line across it on the front of their private vehicles. They're breaking the law that requires their front plate to be attached, they use it as a "get out of jail free" card, they are driving recklessly and wildly for no good reason. A few days ago, I was driving (with MY infant son in the car-seat) and one of these rat bastards came up behind me going over 100mph, nearly ran me off the road (and then swerved towards me making me move another lane over, but there was a tractor-trailer rig there) because I didn't get out of his way fast enough. The SOB actually LAUGHED and shot me the finger! I got his plate and called it in. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I pursued it, I would have a hard time on the roadways because I would be watched by every Cop out there! Welcome to the Fascist State!

I'm looking to buy property. When you decide to move-like you've been saying for years-give me a call when you put your homestead up for sale. 49 other states, a Dictrict of Columbia and a whole host of possessions and territories to choose from. After all, it's a free country...so far.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum